B.N.KIRPAL, J.

(1) LEAVE granted.

(2) THE appellant Bank had filed a suit against the respondents for the recovery of Rs.4,69,192.41p. Some documents had been filed which it appears were not exhibited though they were marked. After the evidence of the respondents was over, an application was filed by the appellant for leading additional evidence. The trial court allowed the same. The High Court in revision has interfered with that order, the result of which is that the liberty which was granted to the appellant by the trial court to lead additional evidence had been taken away.

(3) IN our opinion, this was not an appropriate case where the High Court should have interfered under Section 115 CPC. It cannot be said that the order passed by the trial court was without jurisdiction or suffered from any such error which warranted interference of the High Court under Section 115 CPC. Such interference by the revisional courts during the course of trial only prolongs litigation and it is not in the interest of the parties that the trial of the cases should prolong. As far as the respondents are concerned, it is always open to the respondents to take such pleas in appeal if the decree goes against the respondents.

(4) IN view of the fact that the High Court ought not to have interfered under Section 115 CPC, we allow this appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court and restore the order of the trial court.

(5) NO costs.